What did you do with my RWHN?

[AFK]

Saying it again, then going to bed.

RWHN's objection is the kid's appearance.  Not monstrous enough.

Meaning, not brown enough, not bearded enough, not turbaned enough to be acceptable as a monster.

Don't put the asshat on the cover at all.  He doesn't deserve that kind of notoriety.

[Cain]

So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?

[Doktor Howl]

I am still not getting how this particular killer on the cover of a magazine rates a completely different response from all the other killers on the cover of a magazine. Can you explain the difference to me, RWHN? Is there a difference, or is it your opinion that no criminals faces should ever be published on the covers of magazines?

The kid is young and white.

Not the image of a monster, in RWHN's mind.

[Doktor Howl]

Saying it again, then going to bed.

RWHN's objection is the kid's appearance.  Not monstrous enough.

Meaning, not brown enough, not bearded enough, not turbaned enough to be acceptable as a monster.

Don't put the asshat on the cover at all.  He doesn't deserve that kind of notoriety.

Unlike Bin Ladin.  Who was a monster, on account of brown and bearded.

[AFK]

You're an idiot,

And you're a hair shirt control freak.   

I wasn't talking to you there skippy.

Imagine how horny that makes me.

I'd rather not, thanks anyway.

[Doktor Howl]

You're an idiot,

And you're a hair shirt control freak.   

I wasn't talking to you there skippy.

Imagine how horny that makes me.

I'd rather not, thanks anyway.

Too late.

[AFK]

Like I said, not brown enough, no beard, no turban. 

I can be proven wrong, of course, by RWHN linking to his ringing denouncement - at the time - of Time Magazine putting Bin Ladin on it's cover.

Your comparison would make sense if TIME posted a photo of a young Bin Laden with toussled hair looking ready to pose for an A & F photo shoot.

How old was the kid when he died?   

This is pretty blatant racism, RWHN.  You don't think he's monstrous enough because he doesn't fit the image of a monster in your mind.

Your itty bitty racist mind.

You suck at reading.  And reading between the lines.  This has nothing to do with his race, it's all about how they are imaging this coward and making him a spectacle.  To move units.  They didn't have to put him on the cover at all. 

[Pæs]

I am still not getting how this particular killer on the cover of a magazine rates a completely different response from all the other killers on the cover of a magazine. Can you explain the difference to me, RWHN? Is there a difference, or is it your opinion that no criminals faces should ever be published on the covers of magazines?

He has identified the issue as being "toussled hair looking ready to pose for an A & F photo shoot".

Which means it's badwrong because WHN finds the guy attractive.

[Doktor Howl]

Let's recap.

Acceptable villain (publication-wise):



Brown, bearded, turban, more or less middle aged.

Unacceptable villain (publication-wise):



Young, White.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

You're basing your entire opinion on the fact that putting the bomber's face on the cover is somehow an endorsement of his actions and/or only a gimmick for making a buck. That isn't the case. Any thinking person would understand it isn't.

You're an idiot, I said nothing about Rolling Stone endorsing his actions.  However putting that kind of image of him on the cover IS very clearly about being "edgy" in an attempt to create controversy and move units.


It's insulting to the victims, who have come out against the cover if you read the article in the OP.  It's completely classless.

Ah, well then.

When you said

You can do a story on the asshat sack of shit, but putting that kind of picture on the cover is just unneccesary.  The clear message, wanna be a rock star and get on a magazine but you're a pathetic, cowardly piece of shit?

Blow up kids.

It sounded like you were suggesting Rolling Stone was endorsing or encouraging that sort of action. "If you can't rock and roll, just kill some people and we'll give you a cover." Clearly, I misunderstood you.

What the guy did was horrific. It was something that shouldn't even be thought of doing to another human being. But it wasn't done by some crazy unknowable mysterious being. It was done by a person. Which is what they put on the cover.

Had they really been going for edgy they'd have photoshopped some tattoos and muscles and guns and scantily-clad women draped all over him. They'd have showed his body and the blood and the gore.

What they did was present a face. A normal enough face that does nothing to distance people from the fact he's just like everyone else, except for his horrible mistakes. Which makes it harder to assure one another that this won't happen again and only evil wrong deviant bad CREATURES do things like this.

[AFK]

So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?

I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it. 

[Doktor Howl]

But CPD, you're a woman.  Ergo an idiot.

Dok,
Has noticed another trend.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I am still not getting how this particular killer on the cover of a magazine rates a completely different response from all the other killers on the cover of a magazine. Can you explain the difference to me, RWHN? Is there a difference, or is it your opinion that no criminals faces should ever be published on the covers of magazines?

He has identified the issue as being "toussled hair looking ready to pose for an A & F photo shoot".

Which means it's badwrong because WHN finds the guy attractive.

What were they supposed to do, digitally age him 30 years and give him a beard? That's what the kid looked like.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

So this picture probably shouldn't be on any magazines either.

[Pæs]

So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?

I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.

Others pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.

You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?